On 10 Feb 2017, at 21:31, MJH wrote:
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi people,
I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with
questions already answered.
Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
If anyone else has a question on t
On Thursday, 9 February 2017 15:50:37 UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi people,
>
> I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with questions
> already answered.
>
> Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
>
> If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Hi people,
>
> I think that this post is pure trolling.
>
Of course, anyone who disagrees with the great Bruno Marchal can't be
sincere and can only be a troll.
> >
> John comes back with questions already answered.
>
Answe
Hi people,
I think that this post is pure trolling. John comes back with
questions already answered.
Any one can find the answers in the previews posts.
If anyone else has a question on this, please ask, or comment, but in
this present case we are looping.
Does anyone else have a problem
On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> from the third person points of view that he can have about himself, or
>>> better himselves.
>>
>>
> >>
>> No idea what that means, none whatsoever.
>
>
> >
> It means that the guy can say to his friend: you can join me at W
On 08 Feb 2017, at 03:11, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique
successor because it's just not true anymore.
> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have
about himself, or b
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
>> >
>> Abandon the assumption that "he" will have a unique successor because
>> it's just not true anymore.
>
>
> >
> Right, from the third person points of view that he can have about
> himself, or better himselves.
>
No idea wh
On 07 Feb 2017, at 04:09, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> I am right here in Helsinki right now,
> OK.
>> in the future what one and only one city will I see after
the experiment is over?
> That is the question. OK.
Yes
> Not
On 06 Feb 2017, at 20:28, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel
seeing only one city.
How does computationalism alone guarantee that? It seems that it
relies on a lot of physical assumptions about
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
>> I am right here in Helsinki right now,
>
>
> >
> OK.
>
>>
> >>
>> in the future what one and only one city will I see after the experiment
>> is over?
>
>
> >
> That is the question. OK.
>
Yes
> >
> Notice that
On 2/6/2017 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
because, by computationalism, we know that each copies will feel
seeing only one city.
How does computationalism alone guarantee that? It seems that it relies
on a lot of physical assumptions about the speed of light and the
physical instantiation
On 04 Feb 2017, at 19:15, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> You were correct when when you said "he is
duplicated", therefore while in H any question of the form "what
will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and the
person
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> You were correct when
>> w
>> hen you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
>> the form "what will he...?" is meaningless because "he" is duplicated and
>> the personal pronoun is ambiguous after that.
>
On 31 Jan 2017, at 00:01, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H
person. But he is duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the
HM in M.
You were correct when when you said "he is dup
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> You do have agree that the three people are the same H person. But he is
> duplicated and become the HW in W and becomes the HM in M.
>
You were correct when
when you said "he is duplicated", therefore while in H any question of
On 30 Jan 2017, at 17:44, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating
experiment *YOU* can not predict what one and only one city *YOU*
will see after *YOU* after have been duplicated and thus there ar
On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Where it says things like "in the people duplicating experiment **YOU**
>> can not predict what one and only one city **YOU** will see after **YOU**
>> after have been duplicated and thus there are now 2 of **YOU** and *
>> *YOU** s
On 28 Jan 2017, at 23:37, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal
pronouns with no clear referent;
> Where?
Where it says things like "in the people duplicating
experiment *YOU* can not pre
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> And every one of those 700 pages contains personal pronouns with no
>> clear referent;
>
>
> >
> Where?
>
Where it says
things like
"in the people duplicating experiment **YOU** can not predict what one and
only one city **Y
On 26 Jan 2017, at 21:12, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
>> I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of
physics is able to perform calculations, I need only observe that
is can.
> No, you cannot observe that pieces of matt
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> >>
>> I don't need to explain how matter that obeys the laws of physics is able
>> to perform calculations,
>>
>> I need only observe that is can.
>
>
> >
> No, you cannot observe that pieces of matter are Universal.
>
True I ca
21 matches
Mail list logo